THE IMPACT OF OPEN INGUINAL HERNIA MESH REPAIR ON QUALITY OF LIFE

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1, 5 - 10, 29.02.2020

Elif Cengiz Toprak Kağan Aksu Hilal Sena Çifcibaşı Tuğrul Demirel

Öz

Aims: This study aims to evaluate the effect of open inguinal hernia repair with mesh on the quality of life of the patients who
were operated at a university hospital. Methods: In this cohort study, 86 patients who had undergone an open inguinal hernia
repair at General Surgery Department in a university hospital between January 2017 and October 2019 were asked to fill out the
Carolinas Comfort Scale questionnaire and the data were analyzed retrospectively. Results: The total number of patients in the
study was 86. Seventy-three were male (84%) and 13 were female (16%). The median age was 53 years ranging from 18 to 82. The
difference of pre- and post-operative scores revealed high significance in all categories and in total; laying down, bending over,
sitting up, performing activities of daily life, coughing or deep breathing, walking or standing, walking up or down the stairs,
exercising and total score. Conclusion: Inguinal hernia decreases the quality of daily life by limiting the movements with groin
pain. Surgical low-tension repair with mesh improves the quality of life significantly. Keywords: Inguinal hernia, quality of life,
mesh repair

Anahtar Kelimeler

Inguinal hernia, quality of life, mesh repair

Kaynakça

• 1. Jenkins JT, O'Dwyer PJ. Inguinal hernias. BMJ 2008;336(7638):269– 72. 2. Hammoud M, Gerken J. Inguinal hernia. StatPearls (serial online) 2019 Jan (cited 2019 Feb). Available from: URL: https://www.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK513332/?report=reader#_NBK513332_ pubdet_. 3. HerniaSurge Group. International guidelines for groin hernia management. Hernia 2018;22(1):1-165. 4. Sharma P, Boyers D, Scott N et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of open mesh repairs in adults presenting with a clinically diagnosed primary unilateral inguinal hernia who are operated in an elective setting: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2015;19(92):1-142. 5. Naguib N, ElSamerraai A. No-mesh inguinal hernia repair with continuous absorbable sutures: is it a step forward or backward?. Saudi J Gastroenterol 2009;15(1):68-9. 6. Bringman S, Ramel S, Heikkinen TJ et al. Tension-free inguinal hernia repair: TEP versus mesh-plug versus Lichtenstein: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Annals of surgery 2003;237(1):142- 7. 7. Rutegård M, Gümüsçü R, Stylianidis G et al. Chronic pain, discomfort, quality of life and impact on sex life after open inguinal hernia mesh repair: an expertise-based randomized clinical trial comparing lightweight and heavyweight mesh. Hernia 2018;22(3):411-18. 8. Sanders DL, Waydia S. A systematic review of randomised controled trials assessing mesh fixation in open inguinal hernia repair. Hernia 2014;18:165–176. 9. Heniford BT, Walters AL, Lincourt AE et al. Comparison of generic versus specific quality-of-life scales for mesh hernia repairs. J Am Coll Surg 2008;206(4):638-44. 10. Turaga K, Fitzgibbons RJ, Puri V. Inguinal hernias: should we repair? Surg Clin North Am 2008;88:127–38. 11. Primatesta P, Goldacre MJ. Inguinal hernia repair: incidence of elective and emergency surgery, readmission and mortality. Int J Epidemiol 1996;25:835–9. 12. Burcharth J, Pedersen M, Bisgaard T et al. Nationwide prevalence of groin hernia repair. PLoS One 2013;8(1): e54367. 13. Öberg S, Andresen K, Rosenberg J. Etiology of inguinal hernias: acomprehensive review. Front Surg 2017;4(52):1-8. 14. Knox RD, Berney CR. A preoperative hernia symptom score predicts inguinal hernia anatomy and outcomes after TEP repair. Surg Endosc 2015;29(2):481–6. 15. Lawrence K, McWhinnie D. Quality of life in patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1997;79(1):40-5. 16. Lins L, Carvalho FM. SF-36 total score as a single measure of health-related quality of life: scoping review. SAGE Open Medicine 2016;4:1-12.